zyounan added a comment. In D155370#4545763 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D155370#4545763>, @nridge wrote:
> (e.g. maybe you're looking for one with a particular parameter type). I understand the second point that it'd be nice to offer the user a chance to see the arguments in order to help decide if the function is appropriate -- although in the context where `CanBeCall=false`, arguments don't disambiguate against the overloads, so we'd end up with the same function name after selecting the candidate. (An explicit cast may be required to perform overload resolution if necessary <https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/overloaded_address>, but that should occur before the completion point `&ClassName::Prefix^`.) OTOH, we don't present arguments for overloads in the candidates: F28542806: image.png <https://reviews.llvm.org/F28542806> (At least for VSCode, I'm not sure if others behave the same.) So, I don't think it is that important to retain the `Signature`. Any thoughts? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D155370/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D155370 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
